Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Admissions of Lack of Consensus by prominent “alarmists” in the climate change debate

Even prominent “alarmists” in the climate change debate admit there is noconsensus. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is
over, told the BBC, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists
think this. This is not my view” (BBC News, 2010). When asked, “Do you
agree that according to the global temperature record used by IPCC, the
rates of global warming from 1860–1880, 1910–1940 and 1975– 1998 were
identical?” Jones replied, Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain,
because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th
Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As
for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are
not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which
has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods
are similar and not statistically significantly different from each
other.
Finally, when asked “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has
been no statistically-significant global warming” he answered “yes.” Jones’
replies contradict claims made by IPCC.
Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a
contributor to IPCC reports, wrote in 2009: “What is causing climate
change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? – represent just three of a number of contested or
uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change” (Hulme, 2009, p. 75).
He admits “Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future
performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply
when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes
in climate” (p. 83). On the subject of IPCC’s credibility, he admits it is
“governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives,
thus ensuring that the Panel’s work was clearly seen to be serving the needs
of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body
of independent scientists” (p. 95). All this is exactly what IPCC critics have
been saying for years.